In my recent post on the DC Circuit's decision upholding a temporary restraining order blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, I explained why the DC Circuit majority is right on the merits. See also my other writings on the subject, such as those here, here, and here. But I could not address Judge Walker's dissent arguing that the case should have been heard in a different venue (in Texas, where the five named Venezuelan immigrant plaintiffs are now being detained, rather than in DC). I lack expertise on that technical issue. Now the Trump Administration has made this issue the central focus of their attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene to vacate the TRO.
Professor Lee Kovarsky (University of Texas School of Law) is one of the nation's leading experts on habeas corpus and associated jurisdictional issues. He has generously agreed to write a guest post for us on this issue. The rest of this post is his explanation of why the Trump Administration's position on venue is badly wrong. The material that follows is all by Prof. Kovarsky, not me (Ilya Somin):
JGG v. Trump is shaping up as a generationally important case. It features pretextually activated war powers, rendition of civilians to foreign sites of potential torture, and extreme noncompliance with judicial orders. But in the early stages of litigation, the case centers on an obscure habeas corpus question. Since I co-author the case book they use to teach habeas courses in most law schools, I want to address DOJ's (very bad) argument that JGG is a habeas case that can proceed only in Texas.
